Blogger ensnared in hotly contested autism-vaccine lawsuit

It may not be safe to blog about controversial areas of science. A lawsuit is …

There are a number of cases where public controversies remain in areas where the scientific community considers the existing body of evidence conclusive. One such topic, which Ars has experience with, is the proposal that mercury-containing vaccines play a causative role in the development of autism. Despite the fact that all evidence points against the existence of a link, some parents of autistic children have pursued both "cures" for mercury poisoning and lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. One of those lawsuits has now embroiled an autism blogger, Kathleen Seidel, and her attempts to stay out of it may wind up testing constitutional issues and the role of citizen-journalists.

The diagnosis of childhood autism typically coincides with the recommended time for childhood vaccines, leading many to speculate that there is a connection between the two. One guess was the mercury used as a preservative in many vaccines. Several countries have since discontinued the use of mercury in vaccines, however, and it has had zero impact on the rate of autism; that, combined with the lack of a plausible biological mechanism, has caused the scientific community to reject this proposal and move on.

The public, however, clearly has not. Siedel has described one such lawsuit aimed at her blog on the site Neurodiversity. The parents of an autistic child initially sued manufacturers of several vaccines that used mercury, as well as Bayer, which makes an injection given during pregnancy. As the vaccine charges have been thrown out, the suit has been expanded to include almost any source of mercury, including a company that runs coal-burning power plants. (A PDF of the current complaint is available at Neurodiversity.)

Siedel's post was almost exclusively focused on the legal maneuverings, although it did include the accurate statement that the fracas was the result of "the overwhelmingly discredited scientific hypothesis that autism is a consequence of mercury poisoning." Only the final paragraph veered towards editorializing, calling the suit, "a hydra-headed quest for revenge, for compensation, and for judicial validation of autism causation theories roundly rejected by the greater scientific community." That, apparently, was enough to draw the attention of the attorneys involved.

In late March, Siedel received a subpoena that seeks her appearance as part of the lawsuit. Should the subpoena stand, Siedel would also have to produce documents regarding the financial operations of Neurodiversity and any contacts with the government or pharmaceutical industry, other members of the autism blogging community, or scientific journals. Bizarrely, Siedel would also have to produce any "communication with any religious groups (Muslim or otherwise)"—this may be related to the fact that one half of the couple is an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church.

Siedel has obtained counsel and is attempting to quash the subpoena. Part of her response points out just how easy it would be for a blogger to be intimidated into going along; Neurodiversity is a money loser, and most of the "documents" relevant to it are already public somewhere on the site.

But the motion also gives a great picture of what's at stake, including Siedel's freedom of religious association and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It also makes a strong claim that bloggers are journalists. "The materials and information demanded in the subpoena are subject to the journalist's privilege," writes Siedel. "Although I am unaffiliated with a traditional news organization, and am not compensated for my work except to the extent described above, I am a de facto citizen-journalist regularly engaged in the public dissemination of news and information, and the promotion of discourse and advocacy regarding issues of national importance."

The subpoena has problems on so many grounds, that Siedel's motion may be upheld without a ruling on constitutional grounds or the status of bloggers. If the judge chooses to rule broadly, however the decision could help clarify what role the blogging community has in the public discourse.